Russia Test Fires Bulava Sea-Based Ballistic Missile

Russian Nuclear Missiles - Public Domain

Russia has successfully test-fired a Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) from the Borey-class Yury Dolgoruky nuclear-powered submarine, the Russian Defense Ministry said Wednesday.

The missile was launched from the submerged submarine at a location in the Barents Sea and hit a designated target at the Kura test range on Russia’s Kamchatka peninsula, the ministry said in a statement.

According to the statement, it was the first operational test launch of Bulava in line with the program of combat training. All previous launches were part of development testing.

(Read the rest of the story here…)

***If you are a news addict, be sure to bookmark The Most Important News and visit on a daily basis for the very best breaking news, articles and videos from all over the Internet!***

1 thought on “Russia Test Fires Bulava Sea-Based Ballistic Missile”

  1. This is obviously a wonderful submarine. Logistically it is a disaster! Economically it can bankrupt a country.
    It takes far too long to build one. It is terribly expensive to build one.
    Whenever you use atomic engines of any kind you risk polluting the oceans and you have a disposal problem when the sub has reached its tech level where new stuff makes it a dodo.
    As an example: Hydrofoil technology allows small ships to cruise at speeds unheard of in World War II. And that is what all navy engineering is based on. So you put a small boat in the water, push it with jets, and enable it to have anti-sub weapons at the ready. It can be manned with less than ten people, cover enormous distances and if it is sunk there is little pollution to worry about.
    On a reasonably calm sea, that boat can be put in the water from a larger boat and travel at speeds of 200-500 miles per hour not even touching the ocean beneath it. So the torpedoes that are in the water cannot reach it.
    It can be put on an existing battle cruiser or even an aircraft carrier.
    It is probably immune to sonar as well.
    Does this sub sound familiar? It should. Russia tried combat helicopters in Afganistan. The insurgents used 1,000 dollar ballistic missiles shot from horseback against them. They were taking down a combat helicopter a day to the tune of over 1 million a piece.
    With current tech, they seldom missed.
    Our admirals are living in World War II. So are their engineers.
    Hitler had a better idea and no production facilities to put those ideas into practice. Instead of multi-billion dollar weapons he wanted to put massive numbers of 2 man subs into operation. Each sub had a limited number of torpedoes. Each was easy to assemble and replace.
    Instead of troops, he wanted mini-tanks. Each capable of going over 100 miles a day through enemy territory. The French had their heads in a very smelly place because they built stationary fort like defenses against him. He took them over in very short time by simply moving around them and cutting off all support.
    What saved England from a similar fate to France was a 26-mile ocean with a lot of rocks you really had to know to get by.
    That bought enough time for the English to mount a defense.
    Hitler laughed. He simply bombed the hell out of the English Cities with advanced missiles on V1 and V2 rockets.
    What killed Hitler was logistics. He was fighting a war with Russia, England, and the United States. It still took them 3 years to bring him down from 1942 to 1945.
    I suggest we learn something from our enemies. That apparently hasn’t happened. Neither the Chinese, the Russians, or the United States has gotten out of the severely bad habit of expensive tools vs economical tools in war. South and North Vietnam come to mind. Despite the best equipment money can buy, Vietnam used bicycles against us with a significant loss of materials on our side.
    Instead of Humvees, use 2 ton trucks. There is a significant difference in the cost. The truck is more adaptable. It uses less gas. And it is easily replaced in warfare. A truck can mount any number of weapons. It can be mounted easily with armor.
    The current Humvees get about 9 miles to the gallon. The truck gets almost twice that.
    The problem I see is logistics on both sides. I think those missile sites are a dinosaur. The only effective missile site is mobile. That happened in the 60s with aircraft carrying atomic missiles. If the electronics go crazy, will the missiles explode?
    The Russians meantime have for years had single missiles that launch multiple weapons in the air giving them a shotgun effect.
    What is needed is an effective way to change the rules of atomic warfare and I think it already exists in electro-magnetic fields.
    If all the motors in that field go crazy, what happens to the missile?
    The same goes for every atomic submarine out there. If the motors go crazy what happens?
    We speak often of the Carrigan Effect of 1848 or thereabouts. That hasn’t happened since. But we are also talking about huge sunspots 4 times the size of the Earth or more. One Carrigan Effect and those missles might go off by accident because our electronic controls have gone haywife.
    The most effective weapon in the world is a human being trained. Right now China has approximately 2-3 billion people capable of going to war. They will most likely go to war if economics fails them. Keynesian economics never work long term.
    If they follow Hitler’s techniques of warfare, they will most likely put on the field the most number of human beings in history.
    All of which will have vastly inferior weapons to the enemy. They will lose millions of soldiers in the effort. They can afford it.
    The old saying in that part of the world is 1 million Chinese dead, 1 American dead. Pretty soon no more Americans.
    There is another saying. The person that keeps the Chinese fed, rules China.
    The sub the Russians have put in the ocean is a very pretty, expensive toy. It only takes one weapon to take out the entire fleet in modern warfare unless they are incredibly diversified.
    I am sure it is technically superior to anything our Navy has on the drawing boards. The question is can we afford it?
    I say no. I say we have to switch over to more modern concepts that will win a war without breaking us financially.

Comments are closed.